This paper revisits Kant’s 1768 incongruent counterpart argument that space is absolute. Most commentators today dismiss Kant’s argument as begging the question against the relationalist. I argue that this dismissal is too quick, and that we have something to learn by considering what might have led him to argue as he does. My focus is on the role of geometrical intuitions and the extent to which they can provide defeasible warrant for claims about space. By “geometrical intuitions” I mean both (...) the geometrical intuitions of spatial figures in imagination as well as the claims that seem to directly follow from them. My focus includes uncovering the metaphysical assumptions that are implicated in those geometrical intuitions. Whether or not Kant’s argument ultimately succeeds, the role of geometrical intuitions is worth exploring. Moreover, Kant appeals to geometrical intuitions, and any adequate interpretation of Kant will have to take them into account. (shrink)

En este artículo examinamos los aspectos más relevantes de la concepción del espacio de Leibniz. A través de un enfoque genético, nuestro propósito es mostrar que, en su desarrollo evolutivo, dicha concepción sufre dos transiciones destacables, las que separan y distinguen tres versiones teóricas. En su juventud, Leibniz defiende una concepción substancialista del espacio. Sin embargo, debido a la adopción del nominalismo, dicha concepción sufre un primer giro que decanta en un monismo substancialoide, el que se consolida en el período (...) medio de la filosofía de Leibniz. Ya en el período tardío, Leibniz reformula, en una segunda transición, su concepción del espacio, la que adopta la forma definitiva de -lo que llamamos- un relacionismo substancialoide. (shrink)

Resumen En la siguiente discusión presento algunas objeciones al artículo de Federico Raffo Quintana “La noción de ‘espacio’ en los escritos juveniles de Leibniz”.1 Contra la interpretación de Raffo, quien considera que la concepción del espacio como lugar universal de las cosas es una idea que Leibniz abandona de manera muy temprana -según el autor en 1671-, intento mostrar que esta concepción trasciende sin duda el periodo de los escritos juveniles de Leibniz y que ciertas confusiones conceptuales en la lectura (...) de Raffo hacen que, en vez de ver una armónica continuidad en la teoría del espacio de Leibniz, vea en ella una ruptura en su evolución histórica, a la que, además, asocia algunas dicotomías discutibles o espurias.In this paper I introduce objections to Federico Raffo Quintana’s paper “The Notion of ‘Space’ in the Young Leibniz Writings”. Against Raffo, who considers that the Leibnizian conception of space as the universal place of things is an idea that Leibniz early abandons -Raffo says in 1671-, I will try to show that such a conception goes beyond the Leibniz’s young writings and that it is because of some conceptual confusions in Raffo’s survey that he, instead of seeing a harmonic continuity in Leibniz’s theory of space, sees a rupture in its historical evolution, associating to it some disputable or spurious dichotomies. (shrink)

This paper consists in a study of Leibniz’s argument for the infinite plurality of substances, versions of which recur throughout his mature corpus. It goes roughly as follows: since every body is actually divided into further bodies, it is therefore not a unity but an infinite aggregate; the reality of an aggregate, however, reduces to the reality of the unities it presupposes; the reality of body, therefore, entails an actual infinity of constituent unities everywhere in it. I argue that this (...) depends on a generalized notion of aggregation, according to which a thing may be an aggregate of its constituents if every one of its actual parts presupposes such constituents, but is not composed from them. One of the premises of this argument is the reality of bodies. If this premise is denied, Leibniz’s argument for the infinitude of substances, and even of their plurality, cannot go through. (shrink)

This paper reexamines the historical debate between Leibniz and Newton on the nature of space. According to the traditional reading, Leibniz (in his correspondence with Clarke) produced metaphysical arguments (relying on the Principle of Sufficient Reason and the Principle of Identity of Indiscernibles) in favor of a relational account of space. Newton, according to the traditional account, refuted the metaphysical arguments with the help of an empirical argument based on the bucket experiment. The paper claims that Leibniz’s and Newton’s arguments (...) cannot be understood apart from the distinct dialectics of their respective positions vis-à-vis Descartes’ theory of space and physics. Against the traditional reading, the paper argues that Leibniz and Newton are operating within a different metaphysics and different conceptions of “place,” and that their respective arguments can largely remain intact without undermining the other philosopher’s conception of space. The paper also takes up the task of clarifying the distinction between true and absolute motion, and of explaining the relativity of motion implied by Leibniz’s account. The paper finally argues that the two philosophers have different conceptions of the relation between metaphysics and science, and that Leibniz’s attempt to base physical theory on an underlying metaphysical account of forces renders his account of physics unstable. (shrink)